INTRODUCTION - the Outpost

So, let us begin by first allowing me to introduce myself. Having been around the science block a few times, I, the Senile Scientist, must now sit down and take a break from my once busy professional life and pontificate over what it's all about in the World of Science.

I shall be taking a look at the latest scientific advances (as I am a biological scientist this will be mostly in the biological and medical fields) and slapping on a Post-it of my personal view. Expect some excitement, cynicism, uncertainty, worry, pessimism, astonishment, mirth, misunderstanding, and schoolboy thrills. My wild and sometimes worrying imagination helps me stretch my visionary outlook on how science and technology may advance and what their potential impact on Planet Earth, Her biomass, and that weird species Homo sapiens might be. Much of this is of course unpredictable, but then speculation (a dirty word in science) is often fun and helps feed the creative and imaginative mind.

Scientists often try to promote themselves as being just another Joe Blogs and not the archetypal egg-headed sort often portrayed in the entertainment industry. As an ex-industrial scientist, I thoroughly support the need to point this out. Indeed, scientists, both academic and industrial, play out their professional lives just as in any other sector - politics are rife, money is always an issue, bias abounds (a great and awful weakness of human nature), there are deadline-induced shortcuts and assumptions - I could go on and on. Take the pharmaceutical industry. There have been many ugly legal battles as a result of toxic side effects of newly-launched drugs. How did they manage to get clearance in the first place? Were some of those aforementioned factors perhaps embedded in the company's drive to maintain it's portfolio? We shall look at this pressured world and how money and deadlines act as a deadly disease (probably existing in all industrial sectors) in a later posting. And what of academia? Pressure to publish and to secure that next research grant can attract bias and promote publication of suspect scientific articles associated with bold or exaggerated claims. 'More research needs to be done' is a classic call for another grant (of course this is more often a genuine claim). As with newspapers, scientists don't believe all they read in the scientific literature.

On a brighter note and rising above the messiness that sometimes surrounds Man's scientific quests, there have of course been many wonderful advances, including those in sciences' dependable sister, the field of technology. Just look at the Space Station. Expensive, yes, but one must look beyond the obvious. Man's great attribute is his risk-taking and unrelenting drive to acquire and apply new-found knowledge. Why? When? How? What limits? What value? What mathematical model best describes this? I am a proponent of the notion that Man must sometimes be given a toy and be left to play with it in his little world of theories and hypotheses testing, along with the obligatory bundle of pound notes of course - because when mixed together, this may culminate in an important scientific advance. Oh yes, and let's not forget serendipity. This wonderful star has sparked many a great discovery. Penicillin, superglue, the Post-it, and polymers such as nylon are but a few examples. Scientific Man therefore thrives best on a mix of key basic ingredients: a toy, time, some serendipity and money, and his schoolboy enthusiasm. And at the end of it all he then needs credence! Credibility in the eyes of scientific peers and/or big purse holders is mandatory if Dr Scientist is going anywhere with his or her new discovery. Any new invention or concept needs developing, which means support and money and where appropriate, good marketing of any ensuing commercial product.

And finally ...... the underdog. Yes, we Brits love the underdog. Professor Colin Pillinger and his failed Beagle II Mars mission immediately comes to mind. But let's get the context correctly positioned here. This chap is courageous and tenacious. Such qualities are no less better exemplified by the stalwarts of space travel. Not only are space missions incredibly expensive, but they require a great deal of bravery. And I don't just refer to the astronauts who risk their lives. I mean all of those scientists, engineers, and technicians like Prof. Pillinger and his colleagues who are brave enough to risk investing many years of their professional lives on one programme (because it requires that degree of effort!). I also take off my hat to the visionary benefactors who believe and support these people. And if a mission fails, that should be no big deal. It is both fortunate and unfortunate that space travel is very much in the public eye. Failure of such missions therefore receives much public tut-tutting upon disclosure of the amount of money invested. On the other hand, success generates heroes. We must remember, however, that the principle is the same as with a small university undergraduate project. It is simply on a colossal scale and therefore requires much grit to accept the associated pressure of risk. Importantly, such dedicated scientists and technologists must be supported upon failure - although they must still be slapped if this was due to a silly oversight, like the mixing up of units of measurement that resulted in the loss of a NASA Mars orbiter. But money (lack of it and the usual pressure to cut corners) is often the cause of failure since it forces poor workmanship and selection of suboptimal processes. Fiscal limitations will inevitably continue for ever and ever amen, a cog that will always remain in Man's machinery of scientific advancement. But I am getting negative again....

So hopefully I have given you a taster of how I shall post my thoughts on science. I shall also conduct polls to help me and you gauge public opinion on thorny topics relating to the scientific world which in turn should generate discussion.

Pleased to meet you....

The Senile Scientist